ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2026
Multimodal Communication in Progressive Aphasia: A Mixed-Methods Experience Sampling Study.
Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the experience sampling method (ESM) in characterizing the communication behaviors of individuals with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and to characterize the use of different communication modalities by five participants with PPA and their care partners.
methodFive dyads (participant with PPA and care partner) completed semistructured interviews followed by a 1-week data collection period. Surveys were delivered twice daily to participants via texted links. Participants reported on their use of communication modalities (speech, gesture, writing, etc.). Feasibility was measured by retention and adherence to the response schedule; acceptability was evaluated using the System Usability Scale and a measure of care partner assistance. Patterns of modality usage across participants were analyzed visually, and interview data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis to contextualize ESM findings.
resultsParticipants with PPA completed 100% of ESM surveys, and care partners completed 96% of ESM surveys. Results from the System Usability Scale indicated that among individuals with PPA, surveys were acceptable to one, marginally acceptable to two, and unacceptable to two participants. Surveys were acceptable to four care partners and marginally acceptable to one care partner. Participants reported using unaided communication (facial expression, gesture, and speech) most frequently, with varied use of other modalities. Thematic analysis of interviews yielded four themes related to multimodal communication.
conclusionsESM was found to be feasible for both care partners and participants with PPA in the current study. The method was largely found to be acceptable to care partners. However, acceptability was adversely affected by cognitive-linguistic impairment in participants with PPA. Despite challenges to acceptability, ESM holds promise as a means to characterize communication behaviors in daily life in individuals with PPA and their care partners. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.33106922.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.